Free will

**Artificial** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:09am

Do you believe free will exists?

Justify your answer.

22 Jan. 2010 07:10am

Idk what im talking about

**Artificial** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:11am

Originally Posted by Rape

no because then this earth would be a epic fail of Nazis killing jews again.

How is that post at all relevant to the topic of free will?

22 Jan. 2010 07:17am

Originally Posted by artificial

how is that post at all relevant to the topic of free will?

i failed once again

**Snow-kun** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:15am

No. That would probably make this world pretty dangerous.

**Artificial** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:22am

Do you know what free will is? Let me provide a very simple analogy.

You wake up for school and your mother offers you a choice of cereal or eggs for breakfast. You consider the alternatives and you make the decision based on what you feel like.

Now, did you just exercise free will, or did you simply take a pre-destined path?

22 Jan. 2010 07:23am

Originally Posted by Artificial

Do you know what free will is? Let me provide a very simple analogy.

You wake up for school and your mother offers you a choice of cereal or eggs for breakfast. You consider the alternatives and you make the decision based on what you feel like.

Now, did you just exercise free will, or did you simply take a pre-destined path?

i thought you were talking about the other freewill....

**Snow-kun** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:24am

Originally Posted by Artificial

Do you know what free will is? Let me provide a very simple analogy.

You wake up for school and your mother offers you a choice of cereal or eggs for breakfast. You consider the alternatives and you make the decision based on what you feel like.

Now, did you just exercise free will, or did you simply take a pre-destined path?

Free Will.
10chars

**Viper221** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:34am

Yes,
God gave us free will so we can do things right
But people abuse too much of their free will
So look what free will did to our planet.
Did it get better or for the worse?

**Artificial** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:38am

Maybe I should rephrase it. Do you believe free will is true or not?

Poster above me said 'no' then when on to post as if he thought it correct.

**Viper221** · 22 Jan. 2010 07:48am

Originally Posted by Artificial

Maybe I should rephrase it. Do you believe free will is true or not?

Poster above me said 'no' then when on to post as if he thought it correct.

Hmm...
Another fail for me

**Taylor123123** · 22 Jan. 2010 08:04am

No, everything that happens/happened we're already chosen to happen.

**Artificial** · 22 Jan. 2010 08:13am

Originally Posted by Taylor123123

No, everything that happens/happened we're already chosen to happen.

In other words you believe in fate?

**Vin** · 22 Jan. 2010 09:38am

There is no way to know if everything that happens, was already chosen by some higher being.

But it's nice to think that I am not on a set path, with no way of ever changing it.

22 Jan. 2010 01:04pm

I don't believe in free will. I haven't for some time now. I had to prove it as my final for Philosophy, and I did.
I think the most evidence against free will can be shown by epiphenomenalism. Your brain knows what you'll choose before you do. Based on what's logical (mind-body problem) and psychologically evident, there is no free will.

I found my Philosophy dialogue:

Charles:
As an epiphenomenalist, I believe that mental states, such as happiness, sadness, choosing to move, et cetera, are a result of physical states. As shown by Benjamin Libet, your brain releases chemicals or electric pulses to perform a task milliseconds before you "choose" to perform it. In light of this study, I believe there is no free will.

Ian:
Epiphenomenalism in no way negates free will. Prove me wrong.

Charles:
Epiphenomenalism shows that thoughts come after physical reactions in the brain. Free will is a product of choice, choice is a product of thought, and thought is a byproduct of physical reactions. Therefore free will is a physical reaction and not subject to be changed by any non-physical thing; therefore putting an end to the mind-body problem as well.
This is not all forms of epiphenomenalism, however. Some say that only some mental states follow physical states. I say that's just wishful thinking. Physicalism makes the most sense.

Ian:
But you must remember this very important facet of existence: is this an objective reality we live in? It clearly is not, since we cannot prove anything other than our own mind, as shown by Descarte. The idea that any physical stimulus creates thought is a paradox in itself. How can something not provably real stimulate the only provable process in existence?

Charles:
Sure, if you want to be an idealist and don't believe that physical things exist, but that begs the question of who or what controls your ideals that you do not, such as what we perceive to be reality itself.

Ian:
According to Carl Jung's theory of the Collective Unconscious, it's not "who or what" that controls how we perceive reality. Instead, it's all of us that have ever lived. Because we operate under a collective unconscious, it's all the experiences that everyone has ever had that shapes perception.

Charles:
Yes, but even a collective unconscious cannot, while maintaining that there is free will, explain how your choices can be determined through the physical figment of your imagination before you even choose them. This means some outside force - be it a collective unconscious or a god - knows your choices before you do in order to create that figment. If it isn't feeding those choices to you, it knows what is, and it certainly isn't you.

Ian:
It cannot just be physical occurrences that shape perception. Take, for example, that the majority of people consider hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD to be the most important and life changing experience of their life, and it's just a hallucination; it's all in the head.

Charles:
LSD and other hallucinogens are physical things. They cause physical reactions in the brain, which produce the mental side effects. Hallucinogens do produce a major argument that a reality can "exist" without really existing. However, I see this as more evidence towards physicalism in that the brain is capable of experiencing any reality, but through evolution, only the brains capable of experiencing reality closest to what it actually is survived. People who saw fire as candy or tasted the sweet taste of cyanide didn't make it to spread their genes to what is left of us today.

Ian:
The fact that we are not conscious of it is essentially making for the segue to free will. If there's no way to be conscious of the fact that free will is only technically an illusion thanks to pragmatism, then what's the difference? Yes, everything can be broken down do an action-reaction level, but where's the fun in that?

Charles:
Just because the truth's not fun doesn't mean it's not the truth. One could argue that their false religion is "more fun" in knowing that there is a god who will give them eternal life, but for the sake of advancement of knowledge, we must deny such comfort zones. I don't deny idealism, and believe it holds equal water - especially in the area of solipsism, where your mind is the only thing that exists - but I feel physicalism offers the most sensible explanation based on what we believe we know thus far. It's Occam's razor at work.

**C0FFINCASE** · 27 Jan. 2010 03:03am

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

I don't believe in free will. I haven't for some time now. I had to prove it as my final for Philosophy, and I did.
I think the most evidence against free will can be shown by epiphenomenalism. Your brain knows what you'll choose before you do. Based on what's logical (mind-body problem) and psychologically evident, there is no free will.

I found my Philosophy dialogue:

Your proof is based on a specific outlook that has no more credence than any other out look. Its no better than say "God is real because in the Christian view point there is a god."
I believe in free will. To be brief "Cogito, ergo sum". I am my body, my brain, and my soul acting in conjunction. Soul controls brain, brain controls body to some rough extent though that parts are not necessary for the existence or function of each other for the soul can function alone. I am self aware, which mean I would be able to tell if I was being controlled. If things were predestined then there would be no such thing as a moral conflict or a choice, you would make your decisions without pause and all answers would be clear.
Also don't challenge my soul part your argument is based in duelism.

27 Jan. 2010 03:46am

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

Your proof is based on a specific outlook that has no more credence than any other out look. Its no better than say "God is real because in the Christian view point there is a god."
I believe in free will. To be brief "Cogito, ergo sum". I am my body, my brain, and my soul acting in conjunction. Soul controls brain, brain controls body to some rough extent though that parts are not necessary for the existence or function of each other for the soul can function alone. I am self aware, which mean I would be able to tell if I was being controlled. If things were predestined then there would be no such thing as a moral conflict or a choice, you would make your decisions without pause and all answers would be clear.
Also don't challenge my soul part your argument is based in duelism.

"Cogito ergo sum" has nothing to do with a soul. It simply states that you exist, not that your soul exists, or that you have any control over your own existence. Epiphenomenalism proves that your soul does not control your brain. But before we get into that, maybe you should define soul? And explain how your brain knows what your 'soul' is going to decide before your 'soul' even knows what it is going to decide (this is epiphenomenalism)? My argument is the exact opposite of duelism. I'm saying that the soul doesn't exist, that the mind doesn't exist. Physicalism is the exact opposite of duelism, so you must not have understood anything that I said. I explain it thoroughly in the quote I posted.

**C0FFINCASE** · 27 Jan. 2010 07:33pm

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

"Cogito ergo sum" has nothing to do with a soul. It simply states that you exist, not that your soul exists, or that you have any control over your own existence. Epiphenomenalism proves that your soul does not control your brain. But before we get into that, maybe you should define soul? And explain how your brain knows what your 'soul' is going to decide before your 'soul' even knows what it is going to decide (this is epiphenomenalism)? My argument is the exact opposite of duelism. I'm saying that the soul doesn't exist, that the mind doesn't exist. Physicalism is the exact opposite of duelism, so you must not have understood anything that I said. I explain it thoroughly in the quote I posted.

Well I contend you are wrong sir, the idea of "Cogito ergo sum" is intertwined with the idea of the soul. It is The every foundation of the duelist view point. For several key reasons: To establish your existence by think is to establish that one is not being controlled but has the free will to think in the first place. By establishing the self you establish the mind, soul, or whatever you wish to call it. In this you establish accountability which establishes morality.
These things said: My argument is going to be based in the "cogito" argument. By establishing I exist and that I reason, then something else can't be in control of me so I must be.
Here are some definitions:

Body: "By the body I understand all that which can be defined by a certain figure: something which can be confined in a certain place, and which can fill a given space in such a way that every other body will be excluded from it; which can be perceived either by touch, or by sight, or by hearing, or by taste, or by smell: which can be moved in many ways." ~Descartes

Free Will: "Our having the power of choosing to do a thing or choosing not to do it. It consists alone in the fact that in order to affirm or deny, pursue or shun those things placed before us by the understanding, we act so that we are unconscious that any outside force constrains us in doing so. Making us masters of our actions and thereby merit praise or blame." ~Descartes

Argument:
"To reject everything as absolutely false as to which I could imagine the least ground of doubt, in order to see if afterward there remained anything in my belief that was entirely certain...But immediately afterward I noticed that whilst I thus wished to think all things false, it was absolutely essential that the "I" who thought this should be somewhat and remarking that this truth "I think, therefore I am" was so certain and so assured that all the most extravaincapable of shaking it, I came to the conclusion that I could receive it without scruple as the first principle of the Philosophy for which I was seeking." "What am I?" "I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind, or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason…. I am, however, a real thing and really exist; but what thing? I have answered: A thing which thinks." ~Descartes

Therefor I am a think that thinks and by thinking I establish my free will to think and reason. Meaning I make decisions and choices, constantly.
How does the mind commune with the body? You strike at the one thing the duelist can't answer. We accept the fact that the body and mind are harnessed as the body reacts to the mind's will which we establish as our will. They can be separated at death, we know the body is mortal and we are unable to prove that the soul is immortal though you can give evidence that the soul lives after death from accounts of people that have come back from "death" and claimed to have seen "the light". The best answer I can provide is that the mind/soul is out of phase with this plane of existence, that it is not entirely on our level of existence or on its own, that it manifest its self in the human form because that is the form with which is is most in tune. I then have to thoughts on why the mind/soul is released from the body in death and what happens to it there after. In death the body give off enough energy that it helps the mind/soul return to phase with its own plane of existence or the body in life gives of some energy/field that locks the mind/soul to it and in death the energy/field is no longer produced and the mind/soul is free. After death either the mind/soul travels to another plane or there is for lack of a better word spirit quality to this plane that our physical senses can't perceive and the mind/soul can, thus free of a physical body is stay on this plane and just interacts with the spirit qualities of this plane.

27 Jan. 2010 10:53pm

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

Well I contend you are wrong sir, the idea of "Cogito ergo sum" is intertwined with the idea of the soul. It is The every foundation of the duelist view point.

Firstly, you're confusing mental states with souls. Secondly, having a mental state does not mean you have the ability to control that mental state. You're making those assumptions completely out of thin air. Thirdly, "cogito ergo sum" does not mean you have a mental state or physical state. It simply means you exist. Whether you exist as a physical state or you exist as a mental state or you exist as both is debatable (and, honestly, duelism is the theory with the least amount of support).

For several key reasons: To establish your existence by think is to establish that one is not being controlled but has the free will to think in the first place.

Or has thoughts put into ones head. As provable, one can hook a machine up to your head and know your decisions before you know them. Again, I'm certain you either didn't read the dialogue I posted or you didn't understand them. I covered this topic in-depth. There is no way that you are coming up with your own thoughts if someone [or something] else can know them before you do.

In this you establish accountability which establishes morality.

How does having a mind give you "accountability" or "morality"? Why do people with minds not have morals? Why is morality subjective?
Are you starting your first semester of philosophy this year? You're leaving a lot of details, logic, and reasoning out of your statements.

These things said: My argument is going to be based in the "cogito" argument. By establishing I exist and that I reason, then something else can't be in control of me so I must be.

The "cogito" argument does not state that you reason.

Body: "By the body I understand all that which can be defined by a certain figure: something which can be confined in a certain place, and which can fill a given space in such a way that every other body will be excluded from it; which can be perceived either by touch, or by sight, or by hearing, or by taste, or by smell: which can be moved in many ways." ~Descartes

Free Will: "Our having the power of choosing to do a thing or choosing not to do it. It consists alone in the fact that in order to affirm or deny, pursue or shun those things placed before us by the understanding, we act so that we are unconscious that any outside force constrains us in doing so. Making us masters of our actions and thereby merit praise or blame." ~Descartes

Argument:
"To reject everything as absolutely false as to which I could imagine the least ground of doubt, in order to see if afterward there remained anything in my belief that was entirely certain...But immediately afterward I noticed that whilst I thus wished to think all things false, it was absolutely essential that the "I" who thought this should be somewhat and remarking that this truth "I think, therefore I am" was so certain and so assured that all the most extravaincapable of shaking it, I came to the conclusion that I could receive it without scruple as the first principle of the Philosophy for which I was seeking." "What am I?" "I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind, or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason…. I am, however, a real thing and really exist; but what thing? I have answered: A thing which thinks." ~Descartes

Most cutely, he states that all he can deduce is that he is a thing which thinks. You're going out on a huge, unexplained limb as to how thinking is something outside of physical. My computer can react to input. Does it "think"? Does it thus have a soul? Can you prove that, by thinking, you are doing anything different than said computer? Can you prove that thinking is anything outside of a physical reaction? What part of the cogito argument states that thinking is not a physical reaction? It merely says that you exist because you think - not that thinking is a mental task. Descartes may have believed it to be one personally, but that doesn't make it what is true. The very quote you gave shows that he himself could go no further than to say that he exist and that he thinks. Just because it's longer does not make it any more duelist.

Therefor I am a think that thinks and by thinking I establish my free will to think and reason. Meaning I make decisions and choices, constantly.

Descartes never said that thinking established free will or reason. Maybe you should re-read your quote a little more in-depth. He states that he knows nothing more about himself than that he is "a thing which thinks." He gives a mind, a soul, a reason, and an understanding as examples of things which theoretically think - but not what he believes or has proven to be the case. At the same time, a physical thing can theoretically think without the need of a metaphysical entity. You have yet to prove that that isn't the case or that your logic is any less farfetched.

How does the mind commune with the body? You strike at the one thing the duelist can't answer.

I wonder why.

They can be separated at death, we know the body is mortal and we are unable to prove that the soul is immortal though you can give evidence that the soul lives after death from accounts of people that have come back from "death" and claimed to have seen "the light".

Firstly, the body separating from the mind at death changes per belief. Not all duelists believe that. Secondly, living briefly after death does not prove immortality. Thirdly, seeing "the light" is not evidence of a metaphysical entity.

Alas, epiphenomenalism. Again. Disprove that a machine can't know your decisions before you do (because it's been proven that they can), or how a machine knowing your decisions before you make them somehow still allows an opening for free will. And how said explanation makes more sense, taking into account the mind-body problem. And not forgetting hurdles you'd have to jump to prove that an outside source that can use physical things to determine a decision prior to the decision-maker still leaves room for metaphysical entities.

**Souleater** · 22 Jan. 2010 11:23pm

i feel that life isnt predetermined. everything you do can impact the set course that you are on, so in a sense free will alters destiny. so i believe in destiny but i believe in our power to control it through free will.

**Gina** · 23 Jan. 2010 12:00am

Nope free will is not real its a lie like everything else

**Raivu** · 23 Jan. 2010 12:04am

no.
Everything we do is from a psychological standpoint from what makes us feel comfortable, or uncomfortable. Such as sitting right next to someone in a waiting room with other open seats. Or at a movie theater.
So all of our actions and reactions are just typical responses.

Trust me, if I had free will, I'd be bus surfing right now.

**Ash** · 23 Jan. 2010 12:04am

I think that freewill does not exist, but instead there is numerous paraell univereses that are created when a choice is presented.
in your example of choosing breakfast for example, if You wake up for school and your mother offers you a choice of cereal or eggs for breakfast, you choose eggs say, at the same time another baby universe is created in which you chose instead cereal.

**Gabe** · 23 Jan. 2010 02:42am

Originally Posted by Ash

I think that freewill does not exist, but instead there is numerous paraell univereses that are created when a choice is presented.
in your example of choosing breakfast for example, if You wake up for school and your mother offers you a choice of cereal or eggs for breakfast, you choose eggs say, at the same time another baby universe is created in which you chose instead cereal.

I saw that theory on the History Channel once.

Ontopic: I believe, that no, there is not free will. Every choice you make is based off past psychological experiences and you subconsciously base the rest of your decisions off events of similar likeness.

24 Jan. 2010 10:57pm

It's not so often you see so many people who realize the fallacies of 'free will.' How refreshing.

**sighkick** · 26 Jan. 2010 10:47pm

When you think about it every choice you make is free will...since your freely willing to do it withought getting charged...Get it

27 Jan. 2010 02:47am

Aren't you hilarious?

**Coak** · 27 Jan. 2010 08:23pm

God made a plan for all of us.
Free will?
No.
Prove me wrong.

**C0FFINCASE** · 27 Jan. 2010 08:46pm

Originally Posted by Coak

God made a plan for all of us.
Free will?
No.
Prove me wrong.

I just might be able.
God's plan and free will are not mutually exclusive. You have to consider omniscience and predestination as different. Just because God knows what you will choose does not mean he made you choose it. Rather in because he is God and see till the very end of time and beyond as well as into the past he knows all thing because he's already seen all things. You have in your life time made all your choices yourself and for yourself God has merely observed them. God's Plan is merely that God has all ready seen and know all things and in knowing them has communicated them to humanity through his acts, Son, and Word. (if you're Christian and not part of Calvinism any way, you're Jewish drop the Son part and we're good. If you're Lutheran based Christian then you're like a Scientologist and think the special people are picked out to go to heaven and everyone else isn't and you can't change it but you can do whatever you want in this life. Islam can't decide and Hindus get to choose for themselves. )

**Chris** · 27 Jan. 2010 11:03pm

I do not think there is a such thing as free will. And I do not think there is a pre-designed path.

I think everyone has a set of possible options and answers based on their life and the current situation.

Sure there are plenty of arguements about it but if you studied a person and their reactions to certain sets of obsticales for enough time I am sure you could have a lay out of everything that occurs.

Example;

Put in a puppy in a box.

If every time you shake the box the puppy does a backflip, then you know the puppy will constantly do a backflip, and the only thing that causes it's "option" to change is better self gratification.

All people are selfish, all people will do whatever it takes for them to get whatever they truly want.

With that aspect there is no free will, only a manner of actions.

31 Jan. 2010 10:36pm

Free will does not exist. Going back to Artificials post, you are not excersizing free will. You are choosing from 2 choices. Free will would be saying, "I want pizza." and getting it. Although there may be alot of choices you can make, there are only a certain amount of choices which you can make.

Free will would be "I'll become a flying monkey who eats cheese whenever I want it."

~Fluxo

**C0FFINCASE** · 01 Feb. 2010 01:01am

Originally Posted by fluxo

Free will does not exist. Going back to Artificials post, you are not excersizing free will. You are choosing from 2 choices. Free will would be saying, "I want pizza." and getting it. Although there may be alot of choices you can make, there are only a certain amount of choices which you can make.

Free will would be "I'll become a flying monkey who eats cheese whenever I want it."

~Fluxo

That's idiotic. There are set choices for one. I can ask you to stand or sit and you can choose to pull out a gun and shoot me. Two you have free will with in the bounds of the laws of reality. Materializing pizza is not free will its having god-like powers and being able to create shit by thinking.

01 Feb. 2010 12:51am

ever think that maybe, even it is all predestined choices, its because god or said higher being already knows what choices we would choose in the first place. even if you don't believe in god, to not believe in free will...fyl

**Suske** · 01 Feb. 2010 02:24am

Yes i do believe in free will.
Everyone has the right to do whatever they want whenever they want, but when they abuse this right, it can be taken away. Thats why we have jails.
Free will is what makes us stronger and smarter. If we make a bad choice then we know not to make the same mistakes again.

**The Killa Clown** · 01 Feb. 2010 02:48am

I do believe in free will because people have the right to say and choose what they want to do until they reach their own demise.

**RobbyTheReaper** · 01 Feb. 2010 08:06am

we somewhat have free will

someone more powerful is always controlling us whether it be your boss, your parents, your wife, etc etc

you get your free will but its limited and always is or there is rules

Thread: Free will

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Free will

Posting Permissions